Cynical and Condescending

Sunday, August 31st, 2008

Anytime you see anyone, anywhere, using either one of those two words to describe John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate — if that person didn’t say exactly the same thing about the democrat party choosing Nancy Pelosi as the incoming House Speaker, and that person probably did not, then you’re reading the words of a partisan hack. Whether the partisan hack wants to admit it or not.

And that garbage is all over the innerwebs this weekend. It seems the left has an exclusive license to put the names of women on things, even the names of highly ineffectual, lazy women, to suck up votes. It is their private dominion.

They run up a woman, they act like they invented womens’ rights. Hell — they act like they invented women. Republicans put a woman on the ticket, and suddenly that’s a sign the Republicans “know they’ve lost.”

The only possible conclusion to draw is that liberals feel they own women. Not at all unlike the guy who cheats on his girlfriend, and then when she gets tired of him and hooks up with someone new, says “If I can’t have you nobody can.”

Come to think of it — exactly like that.

Like Diogenes searching for an honest man, I’m looking for the liberal who wants to engage in an honest, free-form, even-playing-field discourse examining, with intellectual sincerity, the achievements of the Governor of Alaska who’s been in office nineteen months, versus the achievements of the House Speaker who’s been in office nineteen months. Leave the bumper sticker slogans and sound bites from Howard YEEEEEAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!! Dean at home, and just compare those two stewardships. Problems fixed…people unified…approval ratings sustained. Then get back to me on which female-selection was cynical, desperate, bald-faced, sneaky, pandering, deceptive, superficial, cheap, calculated and condescending.

Had I not already been inspecting their behavior for a few years, I’d start to seriously think that liberals are simply opposed to solving problems. As it is, this is just frosting on the cake, for I’ve had that figured out for some time now.

I’m looking for the liberal who wants to engage in an honest, free-form, even-playing-field discourse examining, with intellectual sincerity…

Heh. And Ha! And Guffaw! Now that my initial reactions have passed… I just have to ask “Why?” What possible good could come of this, even if such a Liberal existed? The terms “Liberal” and “intellectual sincerity” used in close proximity to one another is simply the biggest contradiction in terms I’ve seen lately… and maybe even EVER.

There is a seldom-discussed and much-marginalized, perhaps altogether discredited, theory among the experts that liberals may share some ancient DNA relationship with the rest of us. As Larry Elder said, “Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.” The rest of us are susceptible to being misguided, so I think it’s productive to dissect the liberal mindset, and find out how exactly they came to be misguided.

It’s a little bit like scientists studying pigs to find out what might happen to humans.

Well, that and that other old saying: “Conservatives look for converts; liberals look for heretics.” I’m proud to claim one such convert. But she was mugged by reality in the Leftie fever swamps that are the blogs o’ The Left (for being heretical… imagine THAT!); I just facilitated.

Consider this.
Do folks who bestow the identity of <em “liberal” Democratic philosophy upon themselves select the BS=facts as a –by any means necessary– necessary evil, or do befuddled disingenuous buffoons decide to publicly register themselves “liberal” and Democrat, because that’s acceptable as a positive defense for disingenuous knavery in certain circles?

I’m allowed to ask that, because…um… I’m a Scorpio….um… with Canadian ancestors.